Islam and Christianity: Theological Themes in Comparative Perspective

By John Renard

In light of the widespread public perception of incompatibility between Islam and Christianity, this book provides a much-needed straightforward comparison of these two great faith traditions from a broad theological perspective. Award-winning scholar John Renard illuminates the similarities as well as the differences between Islam and Christianity through a clear exploration of four major dimensions—historical, creedal, institutional, and ethical and spiritual. Throughout, the book features comparisons between concrete elements such as creedal statements, prayer texts, and writings from major theologians and mystics. It also includes a glossary of technical theological terms. For western readers in particular, this balanced, authoritative work overturns some common stereotypes about Islam, especially those that have emerged in the decade since September 11, 2001.

• Language: English
• Publisher: University of California Press
• Release date: Mar 8, 2011
• ISBN: 9780520948334

John Renard

John Renard is the author of In the Footsteps of Muhammed: Understanding Islamic Experience (1992), Islam and the Heroic Image: Themes in Literature and the Visual Arts (1993), and All the King's Falcons: Rumi on Prophets and Revelation (1994). He is Professor of Theological Studies at St. Louis University.

Book preview

Islam and Christianity

Theological Themes in Comparative Perspective

John Renard

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS

Berkeley     Los Angeles     London

University of California Press, one of the most distinguished university presses in the United States, enriches lives around the world by advancing scholarship in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. Its activities are supported by the UC Press Foundation and by philanthropic contributions from individuals and institutions. For more information, visit www.ucpress.edu.

University of California Press

Berkeley and Los Angeles, California

University of California Press, Ltd.

London, England

© 2011 by The Regents of the University of California

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Renard, John, 1944–.

Islam and Christianity : theological themes in

comparative perspective / John Renard.

       p.   cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-520-25508-1 (cloth, alk. paper)

ISBN 978-0-520-26678-0 (pbk., alk. paper)

1. Islam—Relations—Christianity. 2. Christianity

and other religions—Islam. 3. Islam—Doctrines.

4. Theology, Doctrinal. I. Title.

BP172.R462    2011

297.2'83—dc22                                               2010023443

Manufactured in the United States of America

19   18  17   16  15   14   13   12   11

10   9   8   7   6   5   4   3   2   1

This book is printed on Cascades Enviro 100, a 100% post consumer waste, recycled, de-inked fiber. FSC recycled certified and processed chlorine free. It is acid free, Ecologo certified, and manufactured by BioGas energy.

In grateful memory of

my parents

George (1911–2009) and Virginia (1915–2006)

and

Richard J. McCarthy, SJ (1913–1981),

who dedicated his professional life

to understanding and sharing the riches

of Islam's theological traditions

Contents

Preface

Prologue: Christian-Muslim Theological Dialogue in Retrospect

Introduction: Theological Themes and Subdisciplines

PART ONE. HISTORICAL DIMENSIONS: INTERPRETING GOD'S COMMUNICATION AND DIVINE ENGAGEMENT IN TIME AND SPACE

1. Sacred Sources and Community Origins

2. Development and Spread

PART TWO. CREEDAL DIMENSIONS: FAITH AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THEOLOGY AS A RELIGIOUS DISCIPLINE

3. From Story to Creed

4. The Emergence of Theological Disciplines

PART THREE. INSTITUTIONAL DIMENSIONS: THE STRUCTURES OF THEOLOGICALLY GROUNDED COMMUNITY

5. Beneath the Brick and Mortar

6. Institutions in Action

PART FOUR. ETHICAL AND SPIRITUAL DIMENSIONS: MAPPING OUTWARD AND INWARD JOURNEYS OF FAITH

7. Sources, Methods, and Social Values in Theological Ethics

8. Sources and Models in Traditions of Spirituality

9. Themes in Prayer and Mystical Theology

Epilogue: Reflections on the Prospects for Christian-Muslim Theological Dialogue

Notes

Theological Glossary

Selected Bibliography

General Index

Index of Names, Individuals, and Groups

Index of Scriptural Citations

Preface

Recent world events have countless Americans and Europeans entertaining dire thoughts about the future of civilization. While many conjure up Islamic threats to a world in which the existence of secular societies is under siege, many more seem persuaded that Islam represents an ideology programmatically oriented to exterminating Christian civilization and its sociopolitical protégé, the State of Israel. Scholars, journalists, think tanks, and pundits have produced a vast array of publications addressing various facets of this so-called clash of civilizations and the attendant threat analysis aimed at unmasking the sinister designs of the world's Muslims. Conspicuously rare amid the burgeoning catalogue of books on Islam and the West/Christianity are attempts to present straightforward comparisons between the explicitly theological themes that arguably form the core of the various subcommunities that have historically comprised Christendom and Islamdom.

It has long been commonplace to observe that Islamic tradition, like that of Judaism, pays more attention to orthopraxy than to orthodoxy. Such broad characterizations are of limited utility, however, and can give the mistaken impression that theology plays no significant role in the history of Islamic thought. Though it appears that concerns with creed and orthodoxy have occupied Christian thinkers more consistently than they have their Muslim counterparts, theological images, themes, questions, and problems have been very much in evidence throughout the history of Islamic religious thought from the very outset.

Small books about large topics invariably face a daunting array of limitations. Here are some of the most significant challenges that arise in a comparative study of theological themes in Christian and Islamic traditions. First, both traditions extend over vast expanses of time, space, and culture, and this volume represents a very selective overview. Even if one could credibly claim anything like consistency in theological developments in any centuries-old global tradition, selecting samples from the countless important figures and themes would be virtually impossible. But—and this is the second enormous hurdle—despite intraconfessional claims to the contrary on both sides, the worldwide Christian and Muslim communities have both in fact been comprised of multiple subcommunities. Christians and Muslims alike might prefer to imagine that real Muslims or true Christians have never varied in the faiths they profess, but a striking diversity of views on virtually every significant theological question has been a major feature of both traditions. A relatively short survey such as this therefore confronts the thorny question of which of the many Christianities and Islams, all with their prominent spokespersons and great interpreters, to proffer as representative of the traditions. I do not attempt, furthermore, to describe contemporary Christianities or Islams, though I do seek to acknowledge in broad overview the vast sweep of historical developments down to our day. For reasons of space, simplicity, and the limitations of my own academic background, I lean toward characterizing source materials from classical or middle periods of history. In short, what I present here is in no way intended to characterize a normative version of either Islamic or Christian traditions, but to provide a selective overview of major theological themes in both.

That diversity in turn leads to a third challenge, namely, the choice of criteria for intertraditional comparability. Here it is crucial to observe an important difference between formal and functional comparisons. A fairly obvious formal comparison between Islamic and Christian traditions would be a pairing of foundational sacred texts, the Qur' n and the New Testament. Both are books and, from a phenomenological perspective, ought to be comparable to that extent. From a functional perspective, however, the two scriptures play very different roles in the two theological traditions. As the presence of the word of God in book form, or inlibration, the Qur' n functions more as a theological counterpart to the Christian understanding of Jesus as God's Word made flesh in the incarnation. The New Testament, as the words of Jesus, could then be paralleled with the Hadith, authoritative gatherings of the words and deeds of Muhammad. This in turn presupposes that one posits a similar function for Muhammad and Jesus, as foundational figures of the two traditions. Some would argue, to the contrary, that the apostle Paul functioned more credibly as a counterpart to Muhammad in institutionalizing the new faith communities as distinctive traditions. In the course of this volume, I will attend to such distinctions as needed.

I want to underscore that such comparative accommodations are in no way meant to suggest that Muslims have thought of Christ as Logos or of the inj l as analogous to the sayings of Muhammad, or that Muslims typically draw such comparisons as these (though, in fact, some have). All comparisons and analogies, implicit or forthright, I suggest only as possible ways of making links between two very different families of religious traditions.

A fourth challenge is that in a book of this size that attempts to encompass a subject of such vast scope through a selection of diverse themes, it is all but impossible to root each theme adequately in its rich and complex historical contexts. As a result, the reader must understand in advance that the juxtaposition of structurally similar features in Christianity and Islam—for example, exegetical traditions, development of analogous institutions such as educational systems, or structures of intentional community—does not imply a simple one-to-one correspondence across traditions. Many differences, from the subtle to the mutually incompatible, remain to be acknowledged and discovered by further exploration into the themes laid out in these chapters. In short, caveat lector: general structural parallels or analogies suggested here are in no instance meant to imply point-for-point correspondence, let alone that the Islamic and Christian faith traditions are variants of one another.

A related challenge has to do with the difficulty of marshaling evidence and illustrations evenhandedly. Though it has been my overarching desire to do just that, I have not always succeeded. Disparities in this respect are in no way programmatic or deliberate, but merely ad hoc evidence of my limited ability to juggle with perfect dexterity and symmetry such a vast array of data. My choices as to the level of historical detail to be provided have turned on a compromise as to the book's primary audience. In the end I decided to aim at the broad middle readership of those seeking to enhance a beginning interest in the subject. I apologize in advance both to specialists who find the occasional provision of clusters of names and dates unnecessary and to readers new to the field who may find such data daunting at least initially.

Last, but perhaps most importantly, I am presuming to challenge, and perhaps frankly redefine, regnant assumptions about what constitutes theology as a mode of interpretation of disparate religious traditions. I begin the process by stretching the range of the adjective theological beyond the intellectual or academic exercise of probing foundational sources for the purpose of articulating elements of a given creed and ultimately defining one community of belief in distinction to another. I use the term theological to include the broad panoply of texts and images and the various modes of interpreting them; ways of reasoning and analysis of human religious experience; modes of expression, whether verbal or visual, of that experience; and the host of institutional and cultural developments that have formed the settings and contexts for all such interpretation, processing, and expression. The essential pivot is the clear association of some sort of divine impetus with all of the above. In no way do I wish to diminish the importance of theology as a key religious and academic discipline, but merely to set that activity in the broadest possible context, apart from which its relevance cannot be fully assessed. If the discipline of theology is a walled city, stoutly defended, visible from afar but accessible only to the elite, the theological is the surrounding landscape, with its towns, villages, and farms, which stretches to the horizons and on which the citadel depends for its sustenance.

ANGLE OF APPROACH, STRUCTURE AND INTENT

As a specialist in Islamic studies, with a focus on medieval religious texts in Arabic and Persian, I have been absorbed for over thirty-five years with religious questions raised by Muslim authors. Prior to doctoral studies in the Islamic tradition, a master's degree in biblical studies and a master of divinity program of theological education leading to ordination as a Roman Catholic priest of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) provided a broad familiarity with Christian sacred sources and theological disciplines. Several years ago I decided to combine the two streams of study. There have been more than a few books comparing large religious themes in Islam and Christianity, but very few that have sought to provide an overview of similarities and differences in the two traditions in the more limited field of explicitly theological themes. At the same time, an emphasis on themes expands the scope of the book beyond the confines of the relatively narrow category of theology as an academic religious discipline. An underlying structural conviction here is that one can identify very broadly analogous trends in Christian and Islamic theological traditions. Before there were disparate theological systems, there were evolving schools of thought; those schools in turn evolved alongside the identification of diverse theological positions in creedal formulations, and creedal statements codified elements of the faith community's master narrative.

I view the overall project through the frame of theological dialogue. Though it is not pointedly about theological dialogue, this exploration presupposes that such an intertraditional conversation is both desirable and possible, but that it needs to occur against a broader backdrop than generally available until now. As a working definition, I propose that theological dialogue begins with the assumption that the traditions of both (or all) interlocutors are rooted in experiences of, and insight into, a divinely initiated connection with humankind and the world. We have considerable historical data about a wide variety of examples, however halting or ill intentioned or unsuccessful, of Christian-Muslim theological dialogue beginning over thirteen centuries ago. In practical terms, theological dialogue turns on an identification of concepts and values essential to characterizing the overall relationship between two faith traditions or communities. A community's place in the political scheme of things in a given region and time has historically had a profound influence on the choice of themes. Theologies have always been fraught with political implications, and few political systems have been entirely free of theological resonances. On the basis of that de facto selection of target themes, interlocutors assess the issues from the perspectives of their own traditions and make conclusive judgments about the truth of the other.

One could theoretically look through such a frame of reference from both sides. In the interest of space and desire for relative simplicity, I have chosen to do so from the Christian perspective only. Two short bookend pieces set the framework of theological dialogue. A prologue looks back at four key historical models, from very early in Islam's history down through the twentieth century. An epilogue looks to the future with suggestions as to one possible method and several motives for pursuing theological dialogue in generations to come. Inside the frame, an introduction and nine chapters propose a variety of themes as the vocabulary for a language of comparison and contrast.

In the introduction, I set the overall structural context by suggesting an expansive model for understanding the broad purview of theological issues in both traditions. The main parts then explore a complex of four dimensions informed and defined by those theological concerns. Historical dimensions are the focus of the first two chapters, which discuss comparable categories in five areas: sacred sources and their interpretation; theological interpretations of history, especially with respect to the definition of protocommunities; evolving criteria of membership in the community; conversion and global mission; and eschatology, including end-time scenarios.

Chapters 3 and 4 address creedal dimensions, including the emergence of formal creeds and varieties of theological thought, with specific focus on themes of revelation and the nature of God. Institutional dimensions come to the fore in Chapters 5 and 6, which explore questions of authority and law. The final three chapters, on ethical and spiritual dimensions, examine a variety of topics, including sources, methods, and themes in theological ethics, the role of imitation of the founding figure, and the overarching theme of social responsibility; and prayer, piety, and mysticism and the role of exemplary religious figures in inspiring the believer.

In brief notes introducing each of the four main parts, I identify the specific aspects of the theological disciplines described in the general introduction that figure most prominently in the chapters of each part. Each chapter's title signals its own overarching theological theme, and each chapter concludes with a brief summary of the theological principles suggested by the data, with specific reference to the comparisons and contrasts they imply.

A concern for pedagogical utility undergirds the structure of the volume. The scope of the subject is exceedingly broad, and many readers may be only marginally familiar with the major figures and themes. To accommodate the subject and audience, I have organized the order and content of the main sections as a series of verbal overlays, much the way an anatomy textbook might provide visual transparencies that overlay the vascular, neural, and muscular systems on an image of the human skeleton. Thus I am able to refer in later sections to elements laid out previously in different contexts, the better to orient readers in their tour of the subject's expansive terrain. A glossary of technical terms is also provided as an aid to readers. In the glossary and throughout the text and notes, I have opted for a simplified form of transliteration for Arabic names and technical terms, using macron, ayn, and hamza to assist with basic pronounciation.

Let there be no mistake about the pretensions of this volume: the subject matter is clearly so broad and complex as to preclude any ultimately satisfying and satisfactory, let alone definitive, outcome by a single author in a single small book. As for my interpretation of sources, I claim no scholarly originality here. The raw material of this volume arises, to put it bluntly, out of a survey of surveys. To the extent that the scope of comparison and the structuring of its numerous themes may be original in its conception, I hope that the text may occasionally challenge readers by tweaking their default settings on the subject. I seek to offer an occasion for considering the connecting points among the various Christianities and Islams, as well as their numerous irreducible differences, from what I hope will prove a fresh perspective.

As for my method, I do not propose to undertake specific point-forpoint comparisons of questions of doctrine or history. My general purpose is to limn out, through a juxtaposition of broadly similar features in the histories of Islam and Christianity, a master argument that comes unassumingly down to this: the preponderance of historical data suggests that Islam and Christianity are, after all, not as incompatible as many readers might once have thought.

…

By way of acknowledgments, I want first to salute Hugh Goddard for his pathfinding work in Muslim-Christian theological dialogue. I read his excellent Christians and Muslims: From Double Standards to Mutual Understanding (Surrey: Curzon, 1995) soon after its publication, and since then his example has encouraged me to undertake what I hope is a successful attempt to extend and broaden at least slightly his pioneering work. Although the present text and his overlap somewhat—occasionally and fortuitously in structure and, almost inevitably, in some details of thematic content—they cover very diverse territories in historical and textual sources, frame the larger issues distinctively, proceed from varying presuppositions, and suggest different conclusions.

I thank Saint Louis University for a Summer Research Award and a Faculty Research Leave in the fall of 2008 to devote full time to writing. My thanks also to Lisa-Marie Duffield for help in initial stages of gathering resources; Robert Porwoll for special assistance through the summer of 2008; Chih-Yin Chen for her extensive work in spring and fall 2009 on refining early drafts, finalizing revisions, and constructing the glossary; Sarah Swaykus for helping in indexing; and for critique by students in a graduate medieval seminar in spring 2009: Andrew Bangert, Marilyn Kincaid, Jonathan King, Erick Moser, Scott Shoger, and Eric Wickman. I thank also the members of the fall 2009 honors seminar Islam and Christianity: An Interdisciplinary Approach for their insightful comments on a semifinal draft: Nicole Bisel, Caroline Brand, Carole Dobbins, Rachel Dratnol, Laura Henry, Alexis Lassus, Robin Lund, Laurel Marshall, Kate Maxwell, Hannah Moore, Latasha Morris, Madalyn Robb, Katarina Semkiu, and Kristen Wegener.

For their thoughtful comments on earlier drafts I thank David Bertaina, Frank Nichols, and Debra Majeed; and I am grateful to David Vishanoff for his suggestions regarding final draft revisions. I have also benefited from the critique and suggestions of anonymous readers solicited by the Press and send along my thanks here belatedly and indirectly. I am most grateful to Ahmet Karamustafa for his extensive comments on the entire early text and his ongoing willingness to let me run test-pieces by him; and I am particularly indebted to David Johnston for his generous engagement with the project from the earliest, very rough drafts through the final revisions. And I wish to express my gratitude to Reed Malcolm, Kalicia Pivirotto, Cindy Fulton, and the editorial staff of the University of California Press for their high-level professional work and commitment to excellence in academic publication. Special thanks also to Marian Rogers for a superb copyediting job.

Scriptural citations throughout represent my adaptations of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, in consultation with the Hebrew and Greek texts; and of various widely used English versions of the Qur' n, especially that of Abdullah Yusuf Ali, with reference to the Arabic text. The prologue and the epilogue represent an expanded version of a plenary address delivered to the Catholic Theological Society of America in San Antonio in 1993.

Finally, as always my profound gratitude to my beloved Mary Pat for her constant patience, support, and wise counsel through it all.

Prologue

Christian-Muslim Theological

Dialogue in Retrospect

Four historical models of Christian theological engagement with Islam represent a broad spectrum across which Christian theologians have accounted for the church's relationships with Islamic thought as they have perceived it. The four are the polemical, the Scholastic, the Christian-inclusivist, and the dialogical.

JOHN OF DAMASCUS AND THE POLEMICAL MODEL

John of Damascus (c. 655–750), sometimes called the last of the classical church fathers, is a fine example of a polemical model. His message to Muslims is that he hears what they are saying and finds that he must take serious account of their rationale, if largely in self-defense and in reaction against a hostile claim. For John, it is clear that what Muslims are reported to hold does not comport with the truth and must therefore be condemned and revealed for the distortion it represents. John instinctively regards Islam as a competitor, either as a Christian heresy or as an upstart heathen creed. His basic assumption is that there is a right belief, and all other belief systems are to be defined in relation to that norm. John's theological worldview did not arise out of a vacuum.

Before taking a closer look at John of Damascus, a bit of historical context will be useful. A number of seventh-and eighth-century Middle Eastern Christian treatments of Muhammad and Islam are surprisingly positive. The earliest account, Armenian bishop Sebeos's History of Heraclius (finished c. 661, the year of the commencement of the Umayyad dynasty), is remarkably generous, attributing to Muhammad a thorough knowledge of Mosaic law and acknowledging a general moral uprightness in his teaching. As such, his account represents, in John Moorhead's view, not merely a re-telling of what the Arabs believed concerning the status of their religion, but an implicit endorsement of the status they claimed for it. Moorhead attributes Sebeos's few negative comments to political rather than theological interests. An anonymous Nestorian monk writing within the next ten years or so likewise acknowledges firm biblical precedent for Islam and the Prophet. About a century later we find the Monophysite Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre virtually applauding Muhammad's solid stance for morality and monotheism, and against idolatry.¹

A number of documents from the seventh and eighth centuries do indeed roundly condemn Muslims and their Prophet on theological grounds. For example, some argue that Muslims do not worship the true God, because they do not acknowledge the divinity of Jesus. But it will perhaps come as a surprise that as late as the twelfth century generally positive assessments of Islam by Middle Eastern Christian theologians seem to outnumber the blanket condemnations. A twelfth-century Jacobite patriarch of Antioch named Michael the Syrian represents one of the latest such evaluations. Were these authors expressing their true convictions, or merely sugar—coating their opinions in fear of their Muslim rulers? Moorhead argues that because they wrote not in Arabic, but in Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic, they would surely have felt free enough to be straightforward.

But what of John of Damascus, whose family served the Umayyad caliph in the administration of Damascus and whose own grandfather and father had risen to high rank in fiscal and military matters? Daniel Sahas observes:

Studying John of Damascus as a real person, living and reasoning with his own people and with the Muslim settlers in his home city…discloses one of the most serious originators of the Muslim-Christian dialogue; a pioneer mind of distinguishing qualities, such as personal objective knowledge and sensitivity, which one finds generally missing from later Christian representatives.…[His example allows one to] trace the origins of some of the grossest misunderstandings which have shaped the attitude of one religion toward the other.²

The decree of the Iconoclastic Synod of 754, ironically, condemned John not only for his iconolatry, but for being Saracen-minded (sarrakenophroni), slapping him with a total of four anathemas. The epithet had been applied to a number of famous iconoclasts, including Leo III, which was more readily understandable, since he seemed to be acting in sympathy with the iconoclastic preferences of the caliph Yazid II; but why was John labeled a Saracen sympathizer? Evidently because the synod's constituents regarded John's background as tainted by his living among Muslims. John's grandfather, already a high official in Byzantine administration of the province of Syria, had been involved in negotiating the surrender of Damascus to Kh lid ibn al-Wal d and his army (636). He extracted promises of security for all the inhabitants of Damascus except, apparently, for the representatives of Byzantium. The citizens of Damascus were not sorry to see the end of Byzantine rule. John's father later inherited the position; John himself rose high in the Umayyad administration, serving as secretary—chief adviser, according to one interpretation—to the caliph ‘Abd al-M lik (684–705), the man who commissioned the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. A celebrated legend tells how the emperor Leo III, angered by John's resistance to his iconoclastic policies, contrived to raise the caliph's suspicions against John. According to that story, the plot worked. John was ousted and headed for the monastery of St. Sabas near Jerusalem. It seems likely, however, that John actually left of his own accord, although ‘Abd al-M lik's immediate successors were increasingly hostile to Christians.³

Within John's major theological work, Fount of Knowledge, is a section entitled On Heresies, including a segment dedicated to the Ishmaelites. Most of the hundred heresies merit only a few lines, but the portion on Islam takes up four and a half Migne columns.⁴ In Daniel Sahas's words,

[John] presents the facts about Islam in an orderly and systematic way, although not at all complimentary; he demonstrates an accurate knowledge of the religion, perhaps higher than the one that an average Muslim could possess; he is aware of the cardinal doctrines and concepts in Islam, especially those which are of an immediate interest to a Christian; he knows well his sources and he is at home with the Muslim mentality…not inflammatory of hatred, neither grandiloquent and full of self-triumph; it is an essay on Islam, in a book of Christian heresies. In this simple fact lies its significance and its weakness!⁵

Another important work, whose content is attributed to the Damascene Father but whose written form comes from a Melkite bishop named Theodore Ab Qurra (c. 720–825), contains a dialogue-disputation between a Muslim and a Christian. The document provides an excellent glimpse into major issues of importance in the eighth-century Middle East, namely, whether God's omnipotence leaves any scope for human freedom, the meaning of the term word of God, and whether Islam constitutes a definitive prophetic revelation. These themes prompt further intriguing questions about the degree to which Muslim and Christian thought had already begun to interpenetrate in shaping divergent views of parties within both communities. To what extent does the dialogue represent actual Muslim views, and to what extent does it represent John's attempt to demonstrate clear differences between Christian and Muslim positions? From the very early eighth century, around the same time as the Damascene dialogue, Muslims had heatedly debated these same problems among themselves. The Christian argues for human self-determination in the interest of preserving God's justice, while remaining unconcerned that the position appears to compromise God's power. For his part, the Muslim argues for God's omnipotence and is willing to settle for the appearance of the inability of human beings to choose freely.

In the matter of the word of God, we find another interesting point of both convergence and divergence. Mainstream opinions on both sides consider the Word uncreated, but for very different reasons and with different consequences. Both find themselves defending highly paradoxical conclusions, but, ironically perhaps, the Muslim and Christian positions are closer on this question than on that of divine power and human choice. At this point the interreligious issue is not a narrowly christological one as such, but a question of how God communicates to humanity. Disputes about the matter within the Muslim community had the same political implications as debate about the first question. John's distinction between Word (Christ) and words (scripture) of God more or less parallel the Muslim distinction between God's eternal Speech and the Qur n as book.⁶

In sum, John of Damascus offers an example of as positive an approach to Islam as any apologist or polemicist has produced. He did, to be sure, condemn Islam on theological grounds. He regarded Islam as a Christian heresy chiefly because of its denial of the central doctrines of redemption and the divinity of Christ. But at no time does John distort Muslim theological positions; on the contrary, he shows a remarkably thorough knowledge of Islamic sources and intellectual developments of his time. John seems quite intent on informing his Christian readers about Islamic beliefs and practice, not to inflame them against their Muslim neighbors. As Daniel Sahas concludes, What distinguishes John as a Christian interlocutor in the Muslim-Christian dialogue is that he was motivated to refute Islam as, primarily a theological heresy and as a ‘false' religious tradition, whereas later Byzantine writers were involved in anti-Muslim polemics which, more often than not, had political dimensions and support.⁷ A major problem with John's contribution remains his characterization of Islam as a heresy, reducing it solely to its relation to Christianity.

THOMAS AQUINAS AND THE SCHOLASTIC MODEL

Thomas Aquinas is a prime exponent of a Scholastic model. He defines Islamic thought not precisely as Islamic but as an intellectual endeavor, not always negatively, in relation to other intellectual endeavor. The model's basic assumption is that there is a right belief, and while appeal to scripture will not persuade unbelievers, one can martial rational arguments to demonstrate the superiority of that system. The Scholastic model attempts to establish an objective criterion—namely, reason rather than revelation—from which to proceed. Thus does this model advance somewhat beyond the older view of Islam as outright heresy, by viewing the contributions of Islamic thinkers not so much in relation to Christian theological doctrine as in relation to their intellectual credibility, attempting to take them seriously on their own terms in light of reason's objective critique.

Thomas presents two faces with respect to his views of Islam. The first, evidenced largely in the Summa Contra Gentiles, seems to articulate what many before him and since have felt but seldom said publicly or in print. He does not shrink from hurling his share of vituperation at Muslims, and especially at Muhammad.⁸ Here it is most uncharacteristic of Thomas that he relies on hearsay or unreliable tertiary sources in his characterization, not of Islamic thought, but of the venality of Muhammad and the gullibility of his followers. The false prophet seduced the gullible with promises of carnal pleasure, filled their minds with naive fabrications, and forbade them to read the Christian scriptures lest they show him up for a liar. What truth Muhammad did purvey amounted to little more than what any reasonable mind might acquire unaided.

It is puzzling that Thomas says such things even though he was clearly aware that Muslims were monotheists who believed their Prophet had brought a scripture in many ways similar in content to those of Christianity and Judaism. He knew further that Muslims believed that their scripture and prophet abrogate all previous dispensations, and that Muhammad never claimed proof through miracles. Thomas also knew how Muslims regarded Christian beliefs in the incarnation, redemption, Eucharist, and Trinity. He may have had access to John of Damascus's work and probably learned much about Islam from Peter the Venerable's (d. 1156) Summa of the Entirety of the Saracen Heresy, some of whose weaknesses Thomas merely reproduces.⁹ Thomas more than likely had met few if any Muslims, and his membership in the mutual denigration society to which so many Muslims and Christians have belonged over the centuries is a testimony to the insidious corrosive power of popular bigotry and fear of the other. We can scarcely claim to have advanced very far beyond that.¹⁰

On the other hand, we find Thomas evidently persuaded that a number of Islamdom's greatest intellectuals called for a more refined response. In the Summa Theologiae he maintains a posture of professional decorum in his assessment of important positions of Muslim intellectuals of note, such as Ghaz l (Algazel, d. 1111), Ibn S n (Avicenna, d. 1037), and Ibn Rushd (Averroes, d. 1198). To them he says in effect: I take you seriously as a contributor to human thought, I believe I understand what you are saying, and I think you are asking many of the right questions. But you have gone too far in some respects and not far enough in others.

Thomas responded notably to the well-known conclusions of the great philosophical theologians on such crucial cosmological matters as the creation of the world, but the theme that is perhaps most relevant here is that of the status and function of prophetic revelation—a theme also of interest to such remarkable Jewish theologians as Rabbi Moses bar Maimon (Maimonides, d. 1204). A study by Juan Casciaro, El dialogo teologico de Santo Tomas con musulmanes y judios: El tema de la profecia y la revelacion (The Theological Dialogue of Saint Thomas with Muslims and Jews: The Theme of Prophecy and Revelation), surveys the questions of the Summa's Secunda Secundae (Second Part of the Second Part) on prophecy with a view to assessing the influence of Muslim thought (and that of Maimonides specifically among Jewish scholars). The study categorizes Thomas's conclusions variously as largely borrowed, borrowed and partly refuted, profoundly influenced, influenced to a lesser but still measurable degree, or independent. Casciaro observes that about two-thirds of Thomas's material relates directly or indirectly to earlier speculations of Muslims and Jews. Quantitatively speaking, more than half of Thomas's texts on this subject find important correspondences in Islamic and rabbinic literature, much in the form of opinions shared by Maimonides and one or more of the Muslim thinkers.¹¹ There is much more extensive direct citation in Thomas's earlier works concerning the subject, especially in the De Veritate and Summa Contra Gentiles.

Thomas shared Peter the Venerable's quest for a rational basis on which to engage Muslims in discussion. Indeed, the conviction that Muslims were after all worth talking to on those grounds elevates both Peter and Thomas well above most of their contemporaries. The intriguing case of Francis of Assisi (d. 1226) is another remarkable exception, but for very different reasons.¹² Thomas remained steadfast in his belief that the purpose of discussion was to persuade people of the truth of Christianity, and to that extent his approach shares much with the polemical model. Here, however, it is essential to emphasize that Thomas goes a major step further in the seriousness with which he views his adversaries' positions.¹³

HANS KÜNG AND THE CHRISTIAN-INCLUSIVIST MODEL

In the post-Vatican II era, Hans Küng has been working out what one might call a Christian-inclusivist model. He says to the Muslim: I think I understand what you are saying and why, and I am convinced that the future of the world depends on our continuing to listen critically but nonjudgmentally to each other. Küng's explicit motive for approaching interreligious dialogue is that world peace demands religious peace, religious peace demands dialogue, and dialogue demands understanding.¹⁴ This model sees Islam as a religious tradition, not so much because of its validity even within its own orbit, as because it is ultimately better for us all if Christians can learn to account for Islam as both intellectually and theologically too important to ignore.

Küng's basic assumption is that a global plurality of religious systems is an undeniable and probably permanent fact. We must find a way of getting along but without attempting to homogenize, lest anyone recoil at the insinuation that absolute truth claims have to be relinquished. Comparison of doctrinal positions is not a thing of the past, for the approach still begins with Christian doctrine as the standard of truth; but debate over who is right must be replaced by the conviction that understanding is preferable to dominance. Küng's method involves comparison of formal doctrinal categories, with Christianity as the norm and standard. But whereas the Scholastics and apologists were responding to an Islamic impulse that had come toward them, Küng (and others who share his convictions at least in general) has decided to move toward Islam.

Küng places the theological encounter with Islam within the context of Christian engagement with several non-Christian traditions. He enlists the help of scholars, none adherents of any of those traditions, to lay out the theological frameworks in each instance. Noted German expert on Islamic theological sources Josef van Ess provides the Islamic perspectives, to which Küng offers as a Christian response his rendition of the Christian perspective.

The discussion is divided into four segments: prophecy and revelation as the Islamic view of Muhammad and the Qur' n; Sunni and Shi'i views of history as an approach to issues of state and law; images of God and humanity and a discussion of mysticism; and Jesus in the Qur' n as a starting point for a treatment of Islam's attitudes to other religious traditions. Van Ess's treatment is excellent and highly informative. In each instance, Küng frames the issues in decidedly Christian terms, asking in effect whether a Christian can regard Islam's interpretations of revelation, salvation, and prophethood as measuring up. He asks such questions as whether Islam is a way of salvation, whether Muhammad was a prophet, whether the Qur' n is the word of God—all as though a Christian should be in a position to answer them objectively, or indeed as though anyone could do so. Apart from the use of Christian doctrine as standards of truth, there lurks in the background the implicit canonization of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment as definitively formative of an intelligent approach to religious matters. And it has become a truism to say that the Islamic world has yet to experience either of these baptismal realities.¹⁵

To his enormous credit, Küng articulates as clearly as any Christian scholar to date what is really at stake here, and he then goes a step beyond that. His statement about the prophethood of Muhammad exemplifies his position:

The New Testament doesn't bid us reject in advance Muhammad's claim to be a true prophet after Jesus and in basic agreement with him. Naturally, the relationship between Jesus the Messiah and Muhammad the Prophet has yet to be explained in detail. Still, the simple recognition of Muhammad's title of prophet would have momentous consequences, especially for the message he proclaimed, which is written down